Berens Law Firm, established in 2014, is owned and operated by Mike Berens – a seasoned attorney and military veteran.
If you need a tried and true advocate – you will find that Berens delivers exceptional advocacy for every client he represents.
“There is a notion in the practice of law that the most important accomplishments one can achieve are most often the ones nobody hears about.”
Mr. Berens subscribes to that notion.
Berens brings an unmatched depth of experience, achieved from practicing law and teaching trial advocacy and legal topics all over the world. With two decades of experience teaching, public speaking, and advocating on behalf of clients in trial courts, appellate courts, and administrative legal forums, Berens knows what it takes to secure positive outcomes and favorable results.
Practice Areas
U.S. military service members from every branch of service who are facing criminal charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and prosecution by military officers in Special and General Courts-Martial should strongly consider civilian military defense counsel to level the playing field when the stakes are high and their military career is on the line. There is typically only one shot at the trial court level to secure a favorable result and in some cases, a not guilty verdict.
Military Courts-Martial
Federal Civil Service employees facing adverse personnel actions up to and including removal from federal employment by a federal agency typically have robust appeal rights with the Merit Systems Protection Board where they can counter the action with exceptional advocacy, set the record straight and protect their retirement benefits.
Federal Employment Law
Administrative Discharges & Other Adverse Actions
Top-notch advocacy in response to Administrative Discharge Boards, Security Clearance suspension and revocation, Administrative Reprimands (e.g. General Officer Memorandums and Letters of Reprimand), military investigations (e.g. Commander-Directed, Army Regulation 15-6, and Inspector General Investigations), Flying Evaluation Boards, Medical Credentialing Boards, and other adverse personnel actions can secure a positive outcome, save a service member’s career, and even alter the trajectory of one’s life.
Charges in Washington State trial courts (municipal, district, and superior) and Federal Magistrate Courts resulting in criminal convictions have the potential to end one’s military career and carry life-altering consequences. A trusted advocate working for you can make all the difference.
Washington State & Federal Civilian Criminal Courts
Plaintiff’s demanding justice in response to wrongful death, medical provider negligence, or other negligent actions are often limited to civil claims where monetary compensation is their only recourse – Mike Berens and his revered colleagues at Bailey Onsager P.C. have secured very meaningful results on behalf of many plaintiffs in Washington State trial and appellate courts.
Civil Litigation & Claims
About Mike Berens
For those who have never experienced truly exceptional advocacy on their behalf in criminal, administrative, and civil proceedings it is easy to dismiss the value of a seasoned and passionate attorney. The many clients who have been represented by Mike Berens over the course of the past two decades know exactly what it is like to have an attorney and advocate that listens carefully and relies on exceptional work ethic and written and verbal advocacy to achieve the best result possible in every case. There are no guarantees in the practice of law, but having the right attorney at your side when the stakes are high can make all the difference.
Berens is incredibly honored and proud to have been trusted by so many clients in so many different court and administrative forums over the years. His efforts as an attorney have made a meaningful difference to many people. Berens’ track record with his clients, and reputation with the many attorneys and other professional colleagues that personally know him, speaks for itself.
Client Testimonials
★
★
FAQ
-
If you need an attorney, a best practice that Mr. Berens adheres to in nearly every case he accepts is to meet the potential client in person at no charge before the client elects to retain Berens for his legal services. This is to the benefit of the attorney and the client.
Great attorneys win cases by listening to their clients and, when necessary, challenging them on various aspects of their case. Attorneys known to work hard to “leave no stone unturned” during trial or hearing preparation, and know the facts and the evidence and how they apply to the strategy of the case, can often deliver exceptional results.
Experience is a primary factor to consider when selecting any attorney. Consider what the attorney has done throughout their career – including whether they have repeatedly been selected for roles with increased responsibility and hired to take on increasingly complex cases. A proven track record of exceptional advocacy is also important. Trial advocacy skills often translate very well across many different legal forums – including federal, military, and state courts and administrative forums. Another factor to consider is location. Most, but not all of Berens’ clients are located in or near Washington State. Being located near your attorney increases communication with, and access to, your attorney and oftentimes with witnesses and evidence.
Berens has two decades worth of experience providing top-notch advocacy and exceptional legal representation to his clients. Read his Testimonials from former clients to learn more.
-
Many active duty Judge Advocates filling defense counsel billets are highly qualified. Some are more effective than others. One primary factor that often limits the detailed military defense counsel’s ability to defend service members is workload. An attorney with too many competing interests to give your case the attention it deserves may not be right for you when the stakes are high. Another factor that may limit the detailed military defense counsel’s ability to defend you is lack of experience. Your decision on who serves as your advocate is rarely a decision you have an opportunity to make twice.
Timing is also an important factor. Some cases may warrant retaining an attorney immediately, others may not. Feel free to contact Mike Berens to confidentially discuss the specific facts of your case and to hear his initial thoughts and professional assessment of the most appropriate next steps. Initial consultation is free of charge and confidential.
-
The court-martial process typically begins when military authorities become aware of an alleged violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Not every alleged violation of the UCMJ warrants an investigation.
Investigation begins…
A law enforcement component from the responsible commander’s service branch becomes involved when serious allegations are made. The law enforcement component may be the Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID), the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), or the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS). The UCMJ does not distinguish between felony and misdemeanor level offenses. Offenses that would be considered felony-level offenses in civilian jurisdictions are usually investigated by CID, NCIS, AFOSI, or CGIS.
The investigation may be spearheaded by one investigative agency or it may be a joint investigation with another civilian or military investigative entity. There is no strict time limit on the duration of the investigation unless the alleged offense occurred a number of years prior and an applicable statute of limitations demands a more rapid response. Some investigations may last more than one year. Most investigations take a number of months.
Serious allegations where a service member is perceived to be a flight risk or a threat to the safety of others may trigger some form of pretrial restraint under Rule for Court-Martial 304 or pretrial confinement under Rule for Court-Martial 305.
The investigation will likely include collection of any physical evidence, digital evidence and statements from witnesses. Investigators will likely call the subject (accused service member) in to make a statement. The statement may be verbal, in writing, or both. The verbal statement will most likely be audio and video recorded. A military subject suspected of violating the UCMJ should be advised of his/her rights under Article 31, UCMJ, and his/her 6th Amendment right to consult a lawyer. A statement elicited prior to a rights advisement may be suppressed at a subsequent trial by court-martial.
Article 31, UCMJ, rights include the right to remain silent and elect to say nothing at all in response to questions from investigators. It is often in a service member’s best interest to exercise this right. If a statement will be in the service member’s best interest at some point in the future, there will be ample opportunity to provide a statement once the service member has had the opportunity to speak with a lawyer and better understand the allegations being made.
Article 31, UCMJ, rights also include the right to be informed of the nature of the accusation being made. For example, a service member suspected of committing a sexual assault should be made aware of the fact that an allegation of sexual assault has been made.
CID, NCIS, AFOSI, and CGIS often require subjects to accomplish some administrative processing regardless of whether or not the member elects to make a statement. The administrative processing typically involves photos of the service member, fingerprinting, and simple paperwork. The processing may be documented in a shared law enforcement database and be reflected on a background check years later.
A tactic occasionally employed by investigators is to delay the administrative processing of the service member after the service member initially elects to exercise his/her right to remain silent and/or speak with a lawyer in an attempt to get the service member to change his/her mind and make a statement.
The investigation is complete…
The commander responsible for the accused service member and the servicing Staff Judge Advocate will receive a report summarizing the investigation. The report will include summaries from investigators, documentation of the investigative steps taken and evidence obtained, and other information for the commander to consider. Changes to laws in 2022, and a subsequent Executive Order signed on 28 July 2023 changed the way the military reviews and charges certain cases involving “covered offenses.” The covered offenses are sexual in nature. A specially appointed prosecutor (trial counsel), rather than the commander serving as the Court-Martial Convening Authority, decides how to handle cases involving covered offenses.
The reviewing official responsible for the case has a number of administrative, non-judicial, and judicial avenues to pursue. Action will depend in part on the advice of the Staff Judge Advocate. If the facts warrant no further action, the commander may choose to take no further action. If the facts indicate a court-martial is in order, the reviewing official will determine the proper forum. Many military lawyers are typically involved in this process.
Courts-martial
There are three types of court-martial. Summary, special, and general courts-martial. Summary courts-martial are convened for minor offenses and carry no right to a panel (jury) or a defense counsel. A commander or an officer from another unit is usually selected to preside over a summary court-martial as opposed to a military judge. A service member’s rights are significantly diminished in a summary court-martial, but a conviction in a summary court-martial is not comparable to a conviction in a special or a general court-martial and the maximum punishment is limited to 30 days confinement, two-thirds forfeiture of pay for one month and reduction to E-1 for service members in the grade of E-4 and below.
Special courts-martial are generally convened for misdemeanor-level offenses. Special courts-martial carry the right to elect to be tried by a panel of at least three officers (one-third of the panel may be enlisted at the request of an enlisted accused) or, in some cases, only by military judge. One important distinction in a special court-martial is the maximum punishment authorized.
General courts-martial are generally convened for felony-level offenses, cases involving alleged officer misconduct, or a combination of offenses warranting punishment that exceeds the maximum punishment allowed in a trial by special court-martial. General courts-martial carry the right to elect to be tried by a panel or by military judge. The maximum punishment authorized is the jurisdictional maximum authorized by the UCMJ. Maximum punishments in General Court-Martial are often extreme. Authorized punishments include reprimand, forfeiture of pay and allowances, fine, reduction in pay grade, restriction to specified limits, hard labor without confinement, confinement, punitive separation (dismissal (officers only), dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge), and death.
A federal conviction adjudged by special or general court-martial also carries a negative stigma and other collateral consequences that limit future opportunities, such as sex offender registration and the rights to vote and own firearms.
